Mark Steyn, who apparently is still in Australia, has a lovely piece about "Morningtown Ride." It was a song I grew up with--my late Dad was a huge fan of The Limeliters, the "now-obscure folk group" (as Steyn calls them) that first recorded the Malvina Reynolds-penned tune. (Steyn, with some justification, sees them as a model for the Folksmen in/of the film A Mighty Wind. However, I remember their being downright saucy for a folk group: would the almost unbearably earnest Folksmen ever have recorded, for example, "Have Some Madeira, M'Dear"?)When my son was little (he's off to university in the fall) I used to channel my inner 'liter and sing him "Morningtown Ride" while a-strummin' and a-pluckin' my guitar; "Lollipop Tree," another number on the Limeliters' live (and delightfully un-PC) album Through Children's Eyes, was also in my repertoire back then.Ah, memories.

Insufferably preachy. If you'd had a shot of something strong every time someone mentioned "diversity" (or the purported lack thereof in "racist" Tinsel Town), you'd be nursing a helluva hangover this morning.Update: Asians take umbrage at a Rock joke. (Have you noticed that folks who are hot for "diversity" think it's okay to "stereotype" Asians?)Update:Roger L. Simon, an Academy member who plum forgot to vote, slams the "wall-to-wall moral narcissism."

After seemingly being put to rest last year, the controversy over a supposed “hiatus” has resurfaced, but this time with a key change in terminology that could temper the pitch of the discussion.

The idea that global warming took a hiatus in the 2000s has stoked political debate in the United States over the validity of climate models and scientists’ near-universal consensus that global warming has been man-made. If a pause in global warming occurred even as global industries continued to rely on fossil fuels, then perhaps the changes seen in climate scientists could be attributed to natural variation after all, critics of climate change science have argued.

The debate would seem to have been put to rest last year, after scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recalculated climate data to correct for known biases and found that global warming had not paused as proponents of the hiatus theory had suggested. Last November, the online science journal Scientific Reports published an article that affirmed the NOAA’s claim.

In other words, they "recalculated" for all "known biases" save for their own.

An email sent out by Stand With Us, an awesome organization that is actually making some headway in breaking through the adamantine Israel-hate on campus, quotes a McGill U. authority (the "rare bird" referenced in the headline):

...We congratulate all of the students who stood up for their rights and refused to condone a motion that undermines hopes for a just peace between Israelis and Palestinians.While the global boycott movement against Israel employs the rhetoric of human rights and social justice, its agenda actively undermines these ideals. The racist logic of this movement is that Palestinians cannot be free without degrading Israeli rights and turning the Jews back into a stateless people. McGill students stood up for their values by opposing this fundamentally unjust cause.

To quote the excellent statement of McGill’s Principal and Vice-Chancellor, Suzanne Fortier, sent in an email today to all students, faculty and alumni of McGill,

“…I wish to explain why the University’s administration continues to steadfastly oppose the BDS movement, of which this motion is a part.The BDS movement, which among other things, calls for universities to cut ties with Israeli universities, flies in the face of the tolerance and respect we cherish as values fundamental to a university. It proposes actions that are contrary to the principles of academic freedom, equity, inclusiveness and the exchange of views and ideas in responsible, open discourse. These are the core principles of McGill University, as affirmed by its Senate and Board, which should always guide the McGill community."

StandWithUs Canada is particularly proud of the determination and courage of McGill student leaders in fighting this campaign of hatred and discrimination on their campus. We will continue to work to support students in taking back Canadian campuses from anti-Israel, anti-peace extremists

Fortier's fortitude and clear-sightedness should serve as a model to those at other universities (they know who they are) who, to date, have manifested the balls of a flea and the clear-sightedness of a Mr. Magoo.

Failure #1: his claim that he will be able to broker a deal between Israel and the Palestinians provided he doesn't take sides. Trump rival Rubio rips to shreds the notion that "neutrality" is not only called for but is the key to success here.Failure #2: Trump took the wrong side in the Steyn-Mann imbroglio and doesn't seem too interested in preserving the First Amendment. Here's Steyn on the subject:

Trump has now pledged to strengthen the libel laws to favor the plaintiff in suits against the media. So his Tweet siding with Michael E Mann against me does not appear to be an accidental aberration. Thus in November America seems likely to have a choice between two candidates who want to rein in the First Amendment: I didn't see that one coming, although,what with his years of delaying tactics and general obstructionism, evidently Mann did. Judging from responses to Senator Ben Sasse's Twitter feed, principled supporters of free speech are somewhat thin on the ground.

I know there are lots of people on the right who adore Trump and think he's the answer to their prayers. Not me.With his jutting chin, braying voice and strong arm tactics, he reminds me of Benito Mussolini--with a bad comb-over.

Friday, February 26, 2016

I'd like to thank intrepid aggregator MW for sending me this "sic-ening" message:

Hello all!

Solidarity for Palestinain (sic) Human Rights is so happy to present our annual Israeli Apartheid Week at Western University!

Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) is an international series of events that seeks to raise awareness about Israel's apartheid policies towards the Palestinians and to build support for the growing Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign.

This will be taking place NEXT WEEK: February 29th-March 4th. Looking forward to seeing you all! The Facebook page for IAW can be found here.

MONDAY: SPHR Atrium Day: Come learn about the occupation of the West Bank and what this reality looks like for Palestinians living there.

TUESDAY:Jerusalem Street Market: This is a chance for students to learn about the uniquie (sic) city of Jerusalem and check out some cool Palestinian goodies at the same time. Be sure to bring your change!

"Tears of Gaza" Film Screening: Join us for a screening and discussion of this chilling yet raw documentary about the Israeli military assualt (sic) of Gaza in 2008/2009, killing more than a thousand civilians.

WEDNESDAY:Photo Campaign: In celebration of International Women's Day, we will be having a **two-day** (Wednesday and Thursday) booth in the UCC basement to help fund and raise awareness of the newest freedom flotilla iniative (sic): The Women's Boat to Gaza.

A Talk Through 1948: We are pleased to invite Hammam Farah from Students Agaisnt (sic) Israeli Apartheid at York University. Hammam will be discussing the colonialzation (sic) of Palestine and the 1948 Nakba.

CINEMA POLITICA Presents: They Were Promised the Sea - this documentary explores the stories of Morroccan (sic) Jews and the complex web of questions about dual identity, political opportunism, and the challenges faced by those torn between Homeland and Promised Land.

FRIDAY:Apartheid: From South Africa to Palestine:Wrapping up IAW 2016 will be Rima Berns-McGowen from the University of Toronto Mississauga with a talk on the systems of apartheid and the parallels between South African Israeli apartheid.

FYI, the National Post published the letter wherein I observed that Israel-hate is "the Jew-hate of our time" and that "it is clear that Israel's enemies are relentless, and they have chosen post-secondary institutions as ground zero in their all-out agit-prop war against the Jewish state." SPHR--which, sadly, is not "uniquie"--shows us how it's done.One final thought: it occurs to me that there is a parallel to be drawn between "old time" Jew-hate and the Israel-hate at today's universities. In the bad old days--say, for example, under the Russian Czar--the hoi polloi was horribly repressed but, on occasion, was permitted to blow off steam by running riot in a pogrom against the Jews. Today's universities are small duchies of repression, where speech codes and "safe spaces" are the order of the day, and all hatred and racism has been banished. With the exception, of course, of Israel-hate. How satisfying it must be to be able to vent via the expression of what amounts to the only acceptable hatred du jour!Update: Israel-hater Rima Berns-McGowan tweets:

I am coming to the conclusion that the Canadian HoC vote on #BDS was the best thing that cd have happened: to promote BDS #HowChangeHappens

And I am coming to the conclusion that BDS stands for "Bullshit, Duplicity and Spin." Also for "Begetting the Devil's Spadework."

Update: Ex-drama teacher Justin sings the showstopper from Evita:Don't cry for me, Zak Amara.The truth is, I am a doofus.So dim and clueless; Suffused with "kindness"(Which is the same thing as moral blindness)...

The U.N. is obsessed with Israel. The U.N. doesn't do anything about Fidel Castro and Raoul Castro, the U.N. doesn't do anything about North Korea, but every week, they got a new resolution condemning Israel. That's the new face of anti-semitism in the world, is all these anti-Israeli actions.

They just asked us to support them. Well, we have a president right now that treats the Prime Minister of Israel with less respect than what he gives the Ayatollah in Iran -- with less respect than he gives the Ayatollah.﻿﻿

The objective is to end Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, including by means of a “right of return” that proposes to return the several million descendants of the original refugee population to non-existent villages within what is now Israel. That objective was re-articulated in the formal launch of the BDS movement a decade ago, tacked on to other such unachievable demands as “dismantling the wall” that protects Israelis from Palestinian terror attacks.

Another thing making the rounds this week was the proposition that is an unpardonable transgression of decorum to suggest that there might be anything anti-Semitic about the BDS campaign. So I asked [Palestinian human rights activist Bassam] Eid.

“Of course it’s anti-Semitic. There is no doubt about it. It is because it’s anti-Semitic that the campaign has such energy around it. These activists believe that Israel should not exist, that there should not be a Jewish state, that the Jewish people should not exist,” Eid said. “And by the way, this goal will never benefit the Palestinian people, not in the short term, and not in the long term.”

Maybe not, but it'll sure make the campus Israel-haters feel virtuous. And there's nothing headier than feeling that you're on the side of the angels (even though you're doing spadework for the devil).

This was another popular refrain in Parliament – that the BDS movement’s singling out Israel from among all nations is proof of its anti-Semitic nature.

Yes, the BDS campaign singles out Israel, quite naturally. It was started by a group of Palestinians, including Mr. Barghouti, to elicit help in dealing with Palestinians’ biggest problems. It was not intended to solve all the problems of the world. Just as the worldwide campaign against apartheid in South Africa did not address the ills of the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia, or the dictatorship in Somalia, this BDS movement is uniquely tailored to safeguarding Palestinian rights.

The fact that this anti-BDS parliamentary motion passed is ridiculous, says Diana Buttu, a Canadian-born Arab Israeli and former adviser to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas.

“Canada follows international law and correctly labels Israel’s colonization of the West Bank as illegal,” she notes. “BDS aims to hold Israel accountable for its illegal acts,” she points out, “yet the government passes a resolution condemning those who aim to uphold international law and Canadian foreign policy?”

“It’s nuts,” Ms. Buttu said...

You know what's "nuts," Ms. Buttu? The fact that you either can't or won't acknowledge how some people have finally woken up to the false equation linking Israel to apartheid-era South Africa. Because by now it is abundantly clear that the reason the comparison is drawn is to make support for Israel morally indefensible so that its destruction can be justified on moral grounds.You know what else is "nuts"? The fact that Patrick Martin thinks that you, a mouthpiece for that vicious Jew-hater/Zion-despiser Mahmoud Abbas, should be heeded as a virtuous and impartial voice.And it's not only "nuts," it's hysterically funny.

During the trial, jurors heard how the gang's victims were "targeted, sexualised and in some instances subjected to acts of a degrading and violent nature".

One victim, who is now 43, went to live with one of the two convicted women, Karen] MacGregor after she was befriended by her and Davies in the late 1980s.

While she lived there, she told the court, Asian men were brought to the house and she was told to have sex with them in exchange for being looked after.

"Asian" men--what, like Chinese ones? Notice how the PC Beeb is still using this risible and obfuscating adjective to hide/disguise the provenance--i.e. Pakistan--and religion--ie. Muslim--of the male abusers.

For generations, the largest looming threat to Jordan was its Palestinian majority. Although estimates of the size of Jordan’s Palestinian population vary widely, some placing it at just over 50 percent, and other estimates claiming that Palestinians made up 70% of the overall population, all credible demographic studies have agreed that most Jordanians are Palestinians.
It was due to fear of his Palestinian citizenry that for the past decade or so, Abdullah has sought to disenfranchise them. Beginning around 2004, Abdullah began throwing Palestinians out of the Jordanian armed forces. He also began canceling their citizenship.

According to a 2010 report by Human Rights Watch, between 2004 and 2008, the kingdom revoked the citizenship of several thousand Palestinian Jordanians and hundreds of thousands were considered at risk of losing their citizenship in an arbitrary process.

CNN's Nima Elbagir says that as long all FGM measures, both the extreme sort and the less extreme "ritual nicking," remain rooted in the desire to control female sexuality, we should hesitate to view the latter as an acceptable "compromise" (my bolds):

The practice of "ritual nicking" is not new. In some countries, it's known as "Pharaonic," in contrast with "Sunna," the more extreme version.

I'm from Sudan and in my mother's generation, the Pharaonic version of FGM, the "ritual nicking," was reintroduced in Egypt and Sudan. It was an attempt to shield girls from the shame of being uncircumcised -- and therefore unmarriageable -- while protecting them from the horrors in childbirth the more extreme version engenders.

It failed. The extreme version is still happening.

There are no official data for FGM in Sudan because it is considered taboo to speak openly about anything sexual; all of the community-level FGM activists I interviewed refused to be identified by name. All of them agreed, though, that it's the mentality behind enforced submission to norms of purity that needs to change -- not the means of the enforcement.

The authors argue that the best way to protect female children is to adopt the term "female genital alteration" and a more nuanced position on cultural practices -- one that's not associated with long-term medical risks and that they say does not violate human rights.

But among those I spoke to, those who had suffered through the procedure, there's worry that it will only legitimize the thinking behind FGM. As long as that continues, FGM will flourish and mutate.

Enroll at York

Re: Jewish Group Attacks York University, Feb. 18; A Formerly Proud Alumnus, letter to the editor, Feb. 22.I must disagree with the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal and letter writer Joel L. Hertz about the best way to deal with the current anti-Israel sentiment on campus. I would do the opposite, and encourage both Jewish and non-Jewish students who are willing to stand up for religious freedom, democracy and Israel to attend York University.

Agencies such as the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal should ensure that these students have the support and resources they will need to bring a more balanced view to the campus. Asking Jewish students to stay away from York plays right into the hands of the anti-Israel faction and will result in a university that is Judenrein. Some day I hope to again be proud to say that both my daughters are graduates of York University.Judith Weinroth, Toronto.

Here's parent #2, i.e. me:

As a parent who is getting ready to send off her one and only youngster to university this coming fall, I, unlike letter-writer Judith Weinroth, am delighted that York University is not among his selections.

Oh, it's not that I think that the Israel-hate, which I see as the Jew-hate of time, is any more pervasive or pernicious there than at other universities: it is clear that Israel's enemies are relentless, and they have chosen post-secondary institutions as ground zero in their all-out agit-prop war against the Jewish State. It's just that any time there's an anti-Israel incident on campus comes to the media's attention, York authorities seem to deal with it in such a wishy-washy and, yes, even weaselly manner--by downplaying the hatred and championing the "rights" of the haters.

For that reason, I simply do not trust them to ensure the safety of any student who, like my son, happens to be vocally and vociferously pro-Israel.

February 25 is "Ottawa Hijab Solidary Day," and Montreal resident Sima Goel, a Jew who has bad memories of being forced to wear the head covering in her native Iran, thinks we should call the whole thing off:

My personal history with the hijab makes it impossible for me to accept covering my hair. I will forever identify the hijab with the repressive tradition of the Iranian Islamic government, which used its dominance of religion to control its people. I encourage Muslim women all over the world to promote their culture and identity – and I will gladly eat at their table, sing a song of celebration, and rejoice at their success. Nonetheless, to suggest we endorse their religious beliefs by wearing a hijab is unreasonable in this country, which has so clearly promoted the rights of minority members to lives as they please.

I welcome my hijab-wearing Muslim sisters. But I refuse to wear the hijab as a prerequisite for their solidarity. And for the same reason, I would never dare ask them to remove their hijab in solidarity with non-Muslim Canadian women. In the end, my values are no more important than theirs. And after all, isn’t that the Canadian way?

Actually, that is not the Canadian way. The Canadian way is to maintain a pecking order of victim groups, at the top of which we generally place the squeakiest wheel/biggest kvetcher du jour. Ottawa's "Hijab Day" is but one manifestation of the de facto victim list and of Muslims' place at or near the top.Update: What Is Canada Doing Celebrating Hijab Day?Update: This image explains all--it's about the male gaze (and the primacy of men under sharia law) and not about female empowerment:

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Well, that's one way to look at it. Another way--my way--is to call it to get rid of the whole chicken-and-egg conundrum (i.e. which came first, the anti-Semitism or the anti-Zionism?) and to see it all as part and parcel of what I call Zionhass, the Jew-hate of our time. This up-to-date hatred, which is as deranged and over-the-top as previous incarnations of Jew-hate, incorporates and is often driven by a hatred for Israel, the Jewish state. Thus, hatred of Israel leads to hatred of Jews, which leads to hatred of Israel, which leads to hatred of Jews...in one seamless Mobius strip of hatred.

No, it's not the name of the law firm Barack H. Obama is thinking of joining once his presidency wraps us. Rather, it describes the rationale this "deep thinker" is using in order to follow through on his longtime promise to shutter Gitmo.How stupid does this president think we are?

Ahmad, in case you were wondering, was the Yoda-esque cleric from Pakistan whose show I happened to catch on TV one rainy Saturday back in 2007. The program was called Dil Dil Pakistan and was broadcast on Vision TV, a channel devoted to "diversity" and "multiculturalism." The episode I saw featured Ahmad seated behind a super-sized Koran: I mean the thing was absolutely gargantuan. Peering first into the massive volume and then looking into the camera, he intoned some words that I never expected to hear on the telly. He said that it was the duty of Muslims to "wage jihad" physically, with their bodies. And if they couldn't wage it that way it was incumbent upon them to wage it via their pocketbooks, i.e. by financing the jihad.Hmm, thought I to myself. It cannot be, even here in the most multicultural city in the world (so-called), that an imam is allowed to preach violent jihad over the airwaves.The rest, as they say, is history, as the National Post's Stewart Bell took up the story, it became something of acause célèbre, and Dr. Ahmad made an ignominious exit from Vision TV.Somewhat later, our usefully idiotic, politically correct broadcast standards body (the CBSC) ruled that, all things considered, there was really nothing wrong with a Muslim cleric preaching violent jihad on the tube as long as--I kid you not--he did so "in the context" of the Koran. (Which begs the obvious question: isn't all violent jihad waged "in the context" of the Koran?)The only reason I harken back to this stuff is because I just read this in the Jerusalem Post:

The British broadcasting authority on Monday warned an Islamic television channel to cease airing anti-Semitic programming or face sanctions, according to a report published by The Jewish Chronicle.

The Office of Communications, better known as Ofcom, which is the government-approved regulatory authority for broadcasting in the UK, said that the Islamic-centric television channel Peace TV Urdu was in breach of its standards after it cited two recorded lectures aired on its telecast late last year.

In September 2015, Peace TV Urdu aired two programs featuring the late Dr. Israr Ahmad, who stated that Jewish people were "like a cancer" and held a deep hostility towards the prophet Mohammed.

“They do not take advantage of the opportunity to repent, which is why they are afflicted by great calamities," Ahmad said, adding, "and the example is what happened to them at the hands of the Germans.”

He continued by stating that Jews consider gentiles as "animals with a human face.”

In response, Ofcom released a statement saying that the lectures in effect “promote highly negative antisemitic stereotypes about and attitudes towards Jewish people.”

The statement added: “In our view the terms used to describe Jewish people such as ‘like a cancer’, ‘evil genius,’ ‘their poison,’ ‘cursed people’, ‘cursed race’ were particularly strong and inflammatory.”

In reply to Ofcom's findings, Club TV, which holds the licensing rights for Peace TV Urdu, told the government watchdog it “sincerely regretted” the choice of programming aired on its network and that it would not repeat them.

Hey, Ofcom, he was doing it all "in the context" of the Koran--so what's the problem? (That's me being cheeky and channeling the CBSC).The salient point is this: as in the case of Anwar Al-Awlaki, the now dead-and-gone cleric (he was wacked by the Americans) whose videos continue to inspire wannabe jihadis, Dr. Israr Ahmad's hateful teachings will, alas, continue to live on long after this hate-monger's earthly demise.

Monday, February 22, 2016

Victor Davis Hanson wants to know "how and why America’s youth have borrowed a collective $1 trillion for college tuition, and yet received so little education and skills in the bargain."What are odds? Immediately before reading that I read this, wherein all is revealed:

As for exploring every subject susceptible of contemplation, did [Thomas] Jefferson have in mind such courses in English literature listed in, for instance, the Haverford College course catalog (where I find no course in Shakespeare or Chaucer) as “Cruising Home: Queer Kinship in Theory and Practice,” “Literature, Popular Culture, and the American Left,” and “Advanced Topics in Peace, Justice and Human Rights”? In history, a Haverford student can study “Insanity” or “Political Technologies of Race and the Body”; but this year, he won’t be offered “Sport and Society” or “The Early Republic,” which I devoutly hope (but do not feel certain) will cover the American Founding when the college offers it again. As for what college students know of every subject susceptible of contemplation, a hilarious film, Politically Challenged, that Texas Tech students produced does not reassure. To the question of “Who won the Civil War?” 11 students had no idea, though two thought it might have been the South, one suggested “America,” two didn’t know who fought it, and one wondered if the questioner meant the one that occurred in 1967. Only one answered, “The North; the Union.” Only one of nine students could name the current U.S. vice president. None of five students knew from whom America gained its independence, though one thought it might have happened in the 1970s—or else the 1670s. But all of them knew the names of actor Brad Pitt’s current and former wives and that “Snooki” was a character on the TV show Jersey Shore.

I'd go one step further and bet that, even as we speak, someone at some august institution who may or may not know anything about the Civil War is doing a Ph.d thesis on "Political Technologies of Ethnicity, Gender Roles and White Privilege and the Effect of Street Vomiting on a Sustainable Eco-System as Exemplified By Jersey Shore."Or something along those lines.

On CBC radio show The 180, Ryerson journalism prof Kamal Al-Solaylee throws cold water all over Canadians who have been according "Syrian refugees" a rapturous reception. Al-Solaylee doesn't come right out and use the phrase "misplaced moral narcissism"--it happens to be Mark Steyn's--but, in essence, that's the problem as he sees it--the reality that we Canucks have turned these Les Miserables into secondary characters in their own life stories, and it is these stories, in all their wretchedness, that should be told.While I agree with Al-Solaylee to some extent (the sight of some Canadians, including more than a few Jewish ones, furiously patting themselves on the back for their own virtuousness has been a little hard to take), I think he has gone a bit overboard with this rant. Yes, Syrian refugees have had a rough time and will probably face many challenges. And, yes, in all likelihood the first generation of these arrivals will have to work awfully hard so that their children can go on to succeed as Canadians in Canada. But, really, is that any different that what others who have come here from godforsaken parts of the world have had to face?Is it different, for example, from what my own grandparents, who came to Canada early in the 20th Century, confronted?I think not. I think, in fact, that my grandparents (who were not greeted at their point of arrival by a prime minister bearing a puffy Canucki jacket) had it much, much, tougher.I am reminded of a friendly and extremely chatty taxi driver, a gentleman from Pakistan, who drove my mom and me home from a doctor's appointment at a downtown hospital a few weeks ago. He told us he had come to Canada almost two decades ago and since then had had a number of different jobs. He had worked hard and had made enough money to put his two daughters through university. One was a pharmacist and the other was now in medical school. He was so grateful to be here, and didn't once gripe about what Canada "owed" him, and how it had failed to deliver on its promises.Wouldn't it be awesome if the Syrians now arriving--as well as Prof. Al-Solaylee--had that sort of attitude?

The obvious explanation for Merkel’s madness is that she subliminally sees her policy — the expression of a diseased sympathy — as a way of “making amends” (as if amends could ever be made) for the Hitlerian horror of seventy years ago, one still hauntingly present in some, though not all, German psyches. But to make amends to the dead Jews of Europe by admitting live Muslims into Germany, when it is Muslims who today are the chief carriers of antisemitism all over Europe, from Malmo to Madrid, is madness.

Saturday, February 20, 2016

What a muddled book this is! On the one hand, it tries to get inside the heads of the likes of cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (who, interestingly, had a penchant for shtupping prostitutes) and Fort Hood shooter Dr, Nidal Hassan. On the other hand, it strives to minimize the threats posed by jihadis and to utterly trash the handful of Americans who are in the forefront of speaking the truth about the jihad imperative and its roots in classic Islamic doctrine. Hence this--Bergen's disgusting misrepresentation of the anti-jihad fighters (on pp. 269-270):

[Pamela] Geller updated the paranoid right for the post-9/11 era. Instead of a Communist plot to take over America, the 1950s conspiracy du jour, the threat was now Muslims. Geller was only the most visible of a number of such commentators. Former Reagan administration official Frank Gafney published a pamphlet titled The Muslim Brotherhood in the Obama Administration; former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy offered How Obama Embraces Islam's Sharia Agenda; frequent Geller collaborator Robert Spencer wrote the book Stealth Jihad: How Radical Islam Is Subverting America Without Guns or Bombs; and journalist Paul Sperry added Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.

These assertions defied common sense. To claim that nationwide sharia law is imminent is to ignore simple facts: Muslims make up around 2 percent of the U.S. population; there isn't a jurisdiction in the States where sharia is the law; not is anyone demanding its imposition...

Bergen, though an acknowledged expert on the subject of terrorism, unpacks reality through a leftist lens, the reasons, I contend, why he views that above-named anti-jihadis as paranoics who have hyped what, at most, is a limited, non-existential threat. Having read most of the authors listed, however, I feel confident in saying that they do not say that the implementation of sharia law is "imminent." Rather, they see incremental moves away from the things that make America exceptional--including a commitment to the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech--and toward a belief that "hurt feelings" (about, say, critical things being said about the more problematic aspects of Islam and jihad) should become paramount. That sort of thinking is not going to impose sharia rules re free speech imminently. However, it is easing us down the long and winding road at the end of which we may find that "our" ideas about free expression and sharia rules on that subject are more or less in synch.It is not "paranoid" to see what's unfolding right before our eyes. It is a clear-sightedness that amounts to heroism; a willingness to subject oneself to the slings and arrows of those like Bergen who are likely to dismiss you as being an "Islamophobe" with a mental disease.Bergen hews to the Obama derangement which views the "right-wing" threat as being the far stronger and scarier threat. Toeing the Obama line, he writes:

Americans have also long tended to overestimate the threats posed by jihadist while underestimatint the sources of other forms of terrorism, generally defined as any act against civilians motivated by ideology. Since 9/11, extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right-wing credos, including white supremacists, antiabortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed around the same number of people in the United States as have extremists motivated by al-Qaeda's ideology. As we have seen, by the end of 2015, forty-five people have been killed in jihadist terrorist attack in the United States, while right-wing racists and antigovernment militants have killed forty-eight.

I'm not sure from whence Bergen accessed these stats, but have a sense that some fudging may have been involved because Obama, too, is obsessed with the narrative that the right is more dangerous than jihadis. (You could say that that's his story and he's sticking to it).I have no desire to chase down the sources of these stats--they are not listed in the books' notes. By coincidence, however, there's a comment piece in the Toronto Sun which poses some crucial questions about our responses to radical Muslims in our midst (Canadian Senator David Lang who wrote the piece is raising issues that have a Canadian locus, but they are no doubt equally applicable to the American context (my bolds):

I have just returned from a NATO meeting in Brussels where our delegation heard that Europe’s security concerns mirror many of ours: an unpredictable and belligerent Russia continues to challenge the transatlantic alliance; mass migration is destabilizing Europe; and Islamic radicalization is on the rise.

During the past three years that I have chaired the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence, we have studied and reported on the threats to national security.

Our report, Countering the Terrorist Threat in Canada, was clear about the terrorist threat we face. After 9 months of hearings and testimony from over 100 witnesses, we learned that:

By late 2014, authorities identified 318 radical Canadian jihadists, 93 of them seeking to travel abroad, 145 overseas and 80 returnees. These numbers have since increased

There were 683 identified cases of terrorist financing in the last five years, to our knowledge, there have not been any specific charges or prosecutions were initiated

Foreign funds had entered Canada for religious-oriented programming despite their donors’ and recipients’ being linked to radicalization

Eight Canadian charities had their charitable status revoked because of indirect or direct connections to terrorism – yet none of their executive or staff faced criminal prosecution;

Terrorist promotion and radicalization remain a concern in many areas of society, including at schools, colleges, and in religious facilities

Government agencies and political leaders conduct outreach to some disturbing individuals and organizations linked to terrorism and radicalization

The government was failing to communicate clearly with Canadians about the scope of the terrorist threat

Emergency preparedness at the municipal, provincial and federal levels required enhancing in view of the threat we face.

We are concerned that despite extensive evidence received about radicalization and terrorism in Canada and the fact that so many Canadians appeared to be involved, only 52 individuals were charged with terrorism-related crimes, since 2001. This invites the question – why are we not proceeding with more charges?

The failure to lay charges and have those accused appear in open court, undermines our agencies’ counterterrorism work, staff morale and public confidence in government.

Why aren't we proceeding with more charges? Isn't it obvious? It's because we don't want open ourselves to charges of being "Islamophobes" with an unhinging mental illness--the same sticky mud that Bergen has flung at Geller, Spencer, McCarthy et al.Also, you would think that were the potential for "right-wing" terrorism really on par with jihadi terrorism, it would take up at least half of this Countering Terrorism Report and, clearly, they do not.

BDS is to anti-Israel lunacy what ISIS is to Islamic extremism: merely the noisiest and most eye-watering manifestation of a deeply rooted and widespread lethal contamination.

The poison is incubated in the universities. This week, the co-chairman of the Oxford University Labor Club, Alex Chalmers, announced he was resigning over its rampant anti-Semitism and endorsement of Israel Apartheid Week on campus.

“Whether it be,” he wrote, “members of the executive throwing around the term ‘Zio’ (a term for Jews usually confined to websites run by the Ku Klux Klan) with casual abandon, senior members of the club expressing their ‘solidarity’ with Hamas and explicitly defending their tactics of indiscriminately murdering civilians, or a former co-chair claiming that ‘most accusations of anti-Semitism are just the Zionists crying wolf,’ a large proportion of both OULC and the student Left in Oxford more generally have some kind of problem with Jews.”

A further statement from the Oxford University Jewish Society said senior members of the Labor Club liked to regale listeners with a song called “Rockets over Tel Aviv” and endorsed Hamas attacks on Israeli civilians, stated all Jews should be required to denounce Zionism and the State of Israel, and said those who refused to do so should be shunned. And they had arranged for a group of students to harass a Jewish student and shout “Filthy Zionist” at her.

Preventing BDS will not stamp out this deranged animosity against Israel and Zionism that has now gripped most of the Labor Party and Britain’s “progressive” intelligentsia.

Indeed, the new guidance may provide a fig leaf for the derangement to continue...

Indeed--agreed. Like earlier versions of Jew-hate, the "deranged animosity" of Zionhass, the Jew-hate of our time, is a type of mania that's impervious to logic, truth or reality and will therefore continue to flourish in the hothouse environments where "progressives" gather--with or without BDS.

Please Visit

Followers

About Me

Scaramouche is my nom de Web. My real name is Mindy G. Alter, and I like to think of myself as a free speecher with a sense of humour. My bailiwick: fighting on behalf of all the good things that free speech helps safeguard, and doing my utmost to highlight the malevolence and imbicilities of those who oppose freedom, whomever they may be.